Something that's getting lost here - cops, like most people, don't like paperwork so they don't run a check on just anyone they see. They pick and choose (AKA racially profile) who they run and why.

I was followed home one time and the cops waited until I parked on the wrong side of the street to turn on the disco lights. After that, the ran my license and determined that I was A) driving without a valid license, (B) Expired vehicle inspection, C) no insurance and D) that I had warrants for previous violations of same.

They were fishing and they scored. I was mad at the time, not so much now.

/ I do carry insurance these days and my DL is valid and we don't have pesky vehicle inspections in the state where I currently live.

// I bare no ill-will towards the dick-cops who hauled me in. They were doing their job.

Oh my some people are really missing my point and making a ton of suppositions and taking arguments out of context.

Completely remove the fact that he has a warrant. My argument is, "is it OK for her to run a check on a guy for simply flirting with her or seeming 'creepy' "? The common response I'm getting is yes, they do it all the time. That seems very silly and foolish and wrong. If you defend this action, then it would seem perfectly reasonable that a cop could and should run a check on anyone at anytime for any reason.

My argument has nothing to do with arresting people for outstanding warrants or defending this douchebag in the slightest. Read my Boobies! Also, note that I did leave allowance for the possibility of innocence, which is something I'm not seeing from FARKers here.

I arguing the fact that people think it's OK for cops to 'look for a crime' based upon the fact that:

He looks creepy.He looks odd.He approached her.He is a man and she is a woman and even though she doesn't plan on dating him, a woman should always check a guy out because he could be a jerk.She had a hunch.It happens all the time, so it's OK.Or any other reason that is not 'She had reason to suspect that he was breaking the law'.

I don't have to (and I'm not) condone his actions to justify hers. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

cgraves67:imprimere: Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiotB) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.

You can't be serious?

I'd bet that every woman who has ever worn a badge has run a background check on a guy who hit on her. It's a logical thing to do to avoid guys like this.

I'm betting the same guys who see something wrong with this are the also the same ones that do need to be avoided. They don't like the idea that potential victims are taking precautions.

Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?

You're an ex-convict aren't you? It would explain so much of your logic.

imprimere:If you defend this action, then it would seem perfectly reasonable that a cop could and should run a check on anyone at anytime for any reason.

Again, yes. It's not secret information. It is perfectly reasonable to check the people they meet against the list of people they've been ordered to arrest on sight.

As I said before, if they could memorize the list, they would. They can't. It's big. They use a database.

Also, note that I did leave allowance for the possibility of innocence, which is something I'm not seeing from FARKers here.

You're not seeing it because it's irrelevant. He has a warrant. The warrant does not mean that he is guilty, it means that there is probable cause to arrest him and bring him to trial, and an order has been issued to the police to do so. The police are not there to second-guess the warrant.

imprimere:Oh my some people are really missing my point and making a ton of suppositions and taking arguments out of context.

Completely remove the fact that he has a warrant. My argument is, "is it OK for her to run a check on a guy for simply flirting with her or seeming 'creepy' "? The common response I'm getting is yes, they do it all the time. That seems very silly and foolish and wrong. If you defend this action, then it would seem perfectly reasonable that a cop could and should run a check on anyone at anytime for any reason.

My argument has nothing to do with arresting people for outstanding warrants or defending this douchebag in the slightest. Read my Boobies! Also, note that I did leave allowance for the possibility of innocence, which is something I'm not seeing from FARKers here.

I arguing the fact that people think it's OK for cops to 'look for a crime' based upon the fact that:

He looks creepy.He looks odd.He approached her.He is a man and she is a woman and even though she doesn't plan on dating him, a woman should always check a guy out because he could be a jerk.She had a hunch.It happens all the time, so it's OK.Or any other reason that is not 'She had reason to suspect that he was breaking the law'.

I don't have to (and I'm not) condone his actions to justify hers. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

JackieRabbit:spentmiles: Wow, that pretty much sums up the American justice system right there. The guy only has an outstanding warrant. He hasn't been convicted much less even had a trial. And there's this cop assuming that he's guilty and refusing to give him a chance. It's so typical that it makes me sick.

Say what? Let's give you a quick lesson in the American justice system. A judge must issue a warrant for arrest. Once that warrant is issued, all peace officers are required by law to apprehend and arrest the said individual. Note that after the arrest, the police have finished their business in said case. The accused is then arraigned in a court of law to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bound the accused over for trial. If there isn't, he is released. If bound over, he may or may not be granted release on bail, but this has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, but only if he is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The decision for this is strictly the judges. A prosecutor may make a recommendation, but that is all it is. Later there is a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

loaba:imprimere - you're having a hard time dealing with a basic fact of life here. Cops will use their own judgement in determining who they run a check on and why.

It's just that simple and I don't think it is wrong.

Believe me, there are a lot of basic facts of life that I don't like. I don't have a hard time dealing with them either. I don't have to agree with them though.

When it comes to applying the law, I don't want cops using anymore judgement than they absolutely have to. Not only are they people, and as such quite fallable, but they tend to abuse their power. We just need to add execution of sentence and we have our own little Judge Dredds running around.

Between being an attorney and participating in a lot of parades as a Shriner, I come in to contact with many, many coppers, a few of them are reasonably attractive she-cops. I tend to flirt with them far more than I do with women in general. My usual rap is, "Hey there, princess, aren't you looking pretty today." This rarely works. I need a new line.

If a cop wants to check me for Outstanding Warrants every day go for it.

Do you have something to hide, Imprimere?

So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

imprimere:loaba: imprimere - you're having a hard time dealing with a basic fact of life here. Cops will use their own judgement in determining who they run a check on and why.

It's just that simple and I don't think it is wrong.

Believe me, there are a lot of basic facts of life that I don't like. I don't have a hard time dealing with them either. I don't have to agree with them though.

When it comes to applying the law, I don't want cops using anymore judgement than they absolutely have to. Not only are they people, and as such quite fallable, but they tend to abuse their power. We just need to add execution of sentence and we have our own little Judge Dredds running around.

The cop wasn't "applying the law" in this case. She was doing her job.She checked the database on "people who shouldn't be walking around free"®. This idiot was on it. That's all she did.

You need to save this righteous indignation for where it's needed. At this point, you're just making yourself look foolish.

Okay, I was wrong, allow me to reword. You're an absolute idiot. Magorn explained it in far nicer terms than I feel like bothering with, since I'm disgusted at having to defend the police even to an idiot.

For the slightly less idiotic in the audience, I will expand on the subject, however. Existing under an outstanding warrant means a person has opted out of the social contract. In small words, the social contract means we have, as a society, created a set of rules and laws, and agreed as individuals to operate under those rules and laws. It allows a reasonable trust to exist between any one individual and any other individual, or the individual and society as a whole. Breaking those laws is a violation of that trust, and of the contract, but society continues to function because we enforce those laws. Dubiously so admittedly, but ostensibly repairing the broken trust (for the individual in question) and validating the contract (for society as a whole). When someone has an outstanding warrant, not only have they broken that trust, but by opting out of the legal process they have opted out of the contract itself. The law breaking can, in effect, be viewed as a failure to uphold the contract, but avoiding the legal process amounts to a choice to void the contract between the individual and society entire. The only thing less deserving of sympathy is performing the same actions under color of authority, or failing to uphold the social contract, when an individual is granted right and empowerment by society to enforce the rule of law.

I admit this is all a bit off topic, but it's a pet peeve. In regards to cops running the names of people they come in contact with I simply fail to see what possible idiocy can explain it being a violation of some mythical right. If they're profiling and stopping people for stupid reasons, that's a different problem. If they're harassing an individual with no cause, that's a different problem. If they are going out of their way to find a reason to hassle the person rather than dealing with an actual crime, that's a different problem. Running the names of people that walk up and give them their name? That's...nothing. That's just something that's done. It's a natural outgrowth of cities with millions of people and easy and effective rapid transportation that makes relying on wanted posters in the post office quaint and pointless. Or do you feel that somehow old time sheriffs checking strangers against their memory of a poorly done print of a wanted poster was also a violation of some mythical right to absolute privacy while out in public?

imprimere:Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiotB) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.

Can you show me the law that says you are not allowed to flirt with a cop?

Show me a law where a cop cannot check their database even for entirely petty reasons.

Hint: being "meaner" to dudes who annoy the lady cop than she would otherwise is entirely legal. Cops do have room to make their own judgment calls, and anything that will show up on one's legal record does get sounded out in court for a reason.

imprimere:When it comes to applying the law, I don't want cops using anymore judgement than they absolutely have to.

OK. Then they should run everybody.

Nobody was "applying the law" here. The courts already did that.

Not only are they people, and as such quite fallable

That's why tools like an electronic warrant search are so helpful. They help prevent mistakes, like letting wanted suspects get away and confusing people with no warrants for people who have them.

You're on one of the most skeptical, even, at times, overtly hostile forums on the internet when it comes to police action, and everyone, to a man, thinks you're a raving lunatic. The only person who sided with you revealed himself to be a troll. Granted, you may be a troll, too, but if you're not, you should consider that there may be a hole in your reasoning that everyone can see but you.

If a cop wants to check me for Outstanding Warrants every day go for it.

Do you have something to hide, Imprimere?

So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

Again, different argument (though I'm for that one also).

She wasn't doing a background check. She wasn't checking if he was a citizen. She wasn't searching him.She was checking his name on the list of people that need to be arrested.

What her job is.

If you don't want police doing their job, you might want to move somewhere, where there aren't police.

HopScotchNSoda:Between being an attorney and participating in a lot of parades as a Shriner, I come in to contact with many, many coppers, a few of them are reasonably attractive she-cops. I tend to flirt with them far more than I do with women in general. My usual rap is, "Hey there, princess, aren't you looking pretty today." This rarely works. I need a new line.

Calling a woman who has a gun on her, "Princess", is probably the dumbest idea ever.

Tat'dGreaser:HopScotchNSoda: Between being an attorney and participating in a lot of parades as a Shriner, I come in to contact with many, many coppers, a few of them are reasonably attractive she-cops. I tend to flirt with them far more than I do with women in general. My usual rap is, "Hey there, princess, aren't you looking pretty today." This rarely works. I need a new line.

Calling a woman who has a gun on her, "Princess", is probably the dumbest idea ever.

imprimere:So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

That particular law makes life pretty difficult for citizens that "look Mexican". Plus its entire idea is misguided: the idea that if you just deport enough of them they stop coming.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, punish their employers. With no work, they stop coming (citation: the recession).

Gaseous Anomaly:imprimere: So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

That particular law makes life pretty difficult for citizens that "look Mexican". Plus its entire idea is misguided: the idea that if you just deport enough of them they stop coming.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, punish their employers. With no work, they stop coming (citation: the recession).

I don't know about that. They'll still come and just get on welfare (if there are no jobs for them).

I love the 'mythical right' bit. I've never cited any violation of such rights here.

I merely expressed my distaste for, what I perceive to be, an assumption of guilt. This guy is hitting on me, so that is reason to assume that he is on this list of baddies.

For those of you who believe that running a check on anyone a cop comes into contact with, I just want you to be fair across the board.

"Thank you officer for stopping. I was driving along when my tire blew out. If you could just watch for cars as I retrieve my jack... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants ma'am."

"Hey judge, that sure was a crazy court case today, eh?""Yes, some days it seems that this robe is a little heavier than others... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants your honor."

"Wow. I don't have the words to thank you. What ever possesed you to jump in front a bullet like that? I'm a cop, so I'm paid to take risks, but you didn't have to do that to save me.""I believe that every man should try to protect his fellow man. I'm sure you would have done the same for me. Hey, you don't have to put me in for a medal, I'm not hero.""I'm not. I just running you for warants."

imprimere:Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?

Here's where you jump the tracks.

I personally don't have a problem with an officer simply walking up and asking me for my name and checking me for outstanding warrants. Some people do but that didn't happen here.

She didn't approach him, he initiated the contact.With a cop.On duty.Sitting in a cruiser.In uniform.and gave his real name.

imprimere:I love the 'mythical right' bit. I've never cited any violation of such rights here.

I merely expressed my distaste for, what I perceive to be, an assumption of guilt. This guy is hitting on me, so that is reason to assume that he is on this list of baddies.

For those of you who believe that running a check on anyone a cop comes into contact with, I just want you to be fair across the board.

"Thank you officer for stopping. I was driving along when my tire blew out. If you could just watch for cars as I retrieve my jack... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants ma'am."

"Hey judge, that sure was a crazy court case today, eh?""Yes, some days it seems that this robe is a little heavier than others... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants your honor."

"Wow. I don't have the words to thank you. What ever possesed you to jump in front a bullet like that? I'm a cop, so I'm paid to take risks, but you didn't have to do that to save me.""I believe that every man should try to protect his fellow man. I'm sure you would have done the same for me. Hey, you don't have to put me in for a medal, I'm not hero.""I'm not. I just running you for warants."

imprimere:I merely expressed my distaste for, what I perceive to be, an assumption of guilt.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. There is no assumption. That's why she's checking.

She is not impeding his freedom or searching him in any way in any way in order to do so. You keep saying that you think this is wrong and that you perceive it as such, but you seem completely unable to articulate why.

I've never cited any violation of such rights here.

Yet you somehow think that it's even remotely similar to installing tracking chips on the populace.

imprimere:"Thank you officer for stopping. I was driving along when my tire blew out. If you could just watch for cars as I retrieve my jack... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants ma'am."

If you don't think that's what already happens, you're very naive.

"Wow. I don't have the words to thank you. What ever possesed you to jump in front a bullet like that? I'm a cop, so I'm paid to take risks, but you didn't have to do that to save me.""I believe that every man should try to protect his fellow man. I'm sure you would have done the same for me. Hey, you don't have to put me in for a medal, I'm not hero.""I'm not. I just running you for warants."

If you think you can get shot without having your name run, you're living in a complete fantasy world.

freewill:imprimere: I merely expressed my distaste for, what I perceive to be, an assumption of guilt.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. There is no assumption. That's why she's checking.

She is not impeding his freedom or searching him in any way in any way in order to do so. You keep saying that you think this is wrong and that you perceive it as such, but you seem completely unable to articulate why.

I've never cited any violation of such rights here.

Yet you somehow think that it's even remotely similar to installing tracking chips on the populace.

imprimere: "Thank you officer for stopping. I was driving along when my tire blew out. If you could just watch for cars as I retrieve my jack... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants ma'am."

If you don't think that's what already happens, you're very naive.

"Wow. I don't have the words to thank you. What ever possesed you to jump in front a bullet like that? I'm a cop, so I'm paid to take risks, but you didn't have to do that to save me.""I believe that every man should try to protect his fellow man. I'm sure you would have done the same for me. Hey, you don't have to put me in for a medal, I'm not hero.""I'm not. I just running you for warants."

If you think you can get shot without having your name run, you're living in a complete fantasy world.

imprimere:Gabrielmot: You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.

The problem is that she wasn't even considering dating this guy. According to the article, she said she wasn't interested and then ran a check.

Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?

yes? I'm confused, just because they are good at hiding does that make it *okay* to have an outstanding warrant for a brutal crime and not be picked up?

imprimere:Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: I merely expressed my distaste for, what I perceive to be, an assumption of guilt. This guy is hitting on me, so that is reason to assume that he is on this list of baddies.

pute kisses like a man:Gabrielmot: You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.

they have not been proven guilty; the publication could (1) contaminate or bias any potential jurors or triers of fact at his trial, (2) punish the accused without due process of law, and (3) privacy is actually a big deal.

yes, okay... thanks.. you see Fark, this is an acceptable answer/argument.

/favorited.//although I really don't agree with the whole thing (on a personal level) as I'd rather have us be *open* about who has been accused and have the law be a bit more transparent on these things.///really, if a prospective employer can do a background check, why can't an average person know the person they are dating has a rape charge out against them?

Brother Head:Gaseous Anomaly: imprimere: So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

That particular law makes life pretty difficult for citizens that "look Mexican". Plus its entire idea is misguided: the idea that if you just deport enough of them they stop coming.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, punish their employers. With no work, they stop coming (citation: the recession).

I don't know about that. They'll still come and just get on welfare (if there are no jobs for them).

You probably didn't know that most "welfare" is citizen only also, meaning you still have no clue what is actually driving the immigration worries.

You've repeatedly failed to explain why you think it's wrong, only using what you think are outrageous examples in the hopes that everyone will come around and agree with you without any actual argument to back it up.

Instead, you've been repeatedly shown that those examples are illustrations of how it does work and that nobody but you thinks they are outrageous. When specifically offered a coherent interpretation of your view, an explanation of the problems with it, and an opportunity to explain why it isn't completely absurd, you ignored it.

Why do you think this is bad and how do you think suspects with outstanding warrants should be apprehended instead? Articulate your argument.

imprimere:I love the 'mythical right' bit. I've never cited any violation of such rights here.

I merely expressed my distaste for, what I perceive to be, an assumption of guilt. This guy is hitting on me, so that is reason to assume that he is on this list of baddies.

For those of you who believe that running a check on anyone a cop comes into contact with, I just want you to be fair across the board.

"Thank you officer for stopping. I was driving along when my tire blew out. If you could just watch for cars as I retrieve my jack... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants ma'am."

"Hey judge, that sure was a crazy court case today, eh?""Yes, some days it seems that this robe is a little heavier than others... hey what are you doing?""I'm just running you for warrants your honor."

"Wow. I don't have the words to thank you. What ever possesed you to jump in front a bullet like that? I'm a cop, so I'm paid to take risks, but you didn't have to do that to save me.""I believe that every man should try to protect his fellow man. I'm sure you would have done the same for me. Hey, you don't have to put me in for a medal, I'm not hero.""I'm not. I just running you for warants."

Crotchrocket Slim:Brother Head: Gaseous Anomaly: imprimere: So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

That particular law makes life pretty difficult for citizens that "look Mexican". Plus its entire idea is misguided: the idea that if you just deport enough of them they stop coming.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, punish their employers. With no work, they stop coming (citation: the recession).

I don't know about that. They'll still come and just get on welfare (if there are no jobs for them).

You probably didn't know that most "welfare" is citizen only also, meaning you still have no clue what is actually driving the immigration worries.

So you're saying that NO person on welfare is here illegally?

And I know what drives the immigration worries.

Also, so we're clear, you think that if there were no jobs available, that no one would ever sneak in to the US?

You've repeatedly failed to explain why you think it's wrong, only using what you think are outrageous examples in the hopes that everyone will come around and agree with you without any actual argument to back it up.

Instead, you've been repeatedly shown that those examples are illustrations of how it does work and that nobody but you thinks they are outrageous. When specifically offered a coherent interpretation of your view, an explanation of the problems with it, and an opportunity to explain why it isn't completely absurd, you ignored it.

Why do you think this is bad and how do you think suspects with outstanding warrants should be apprehended instead? Articulate your argument.

Sometimes someone's point is "I don't like Party A, therefore anything Party A does is wrong" even if they would deny this, especially to themselves.

Couching this as a legitimate concern of abuse of police authority really does make actual complaints about police abuse harder to discuss though. It's like discussing US foreign policy and having to contend with people pissing and moaning about how the Stargate program complicates interstellar relations while we still lack a coherent planetary government or somesuch idiocy.

Gabrielmot:imprimere: Gabrielmot: You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.

The problem is that she wasn't even considering dating this guy. According to the article, she said she wasn't interested and then ran a check.

Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?

yes? I'm confused, just because they are good at hiding does that make it *okay* to have an outstanding warrant for a brutal crime and not be picked up?

Not at all. It's clearly not ok to have a warrant. It's clearly not ok to be in this country illegally either. At what point is it OK to check people? Everyone here is arguing that it's OK to check people at any time.

Fine, but why limit it to a list of people who have warrants? Why not pull over random people to check their licenses? It's a privelage to drive on our roads and after all, we can't expect the cops to memorize the entire DMV database. Why not pull over people and run their names against deportation records, after all we can't expect the cops to memorize the ICE database.

Yes, I'm making exaggerated examples, but where do we draw the line? He was not breaking a law, but she checked to see if he was a lawbreaker. Yes, it's done all the time and we accept that, but should we? So, where next?

I'm saying, you have a legitimate reason to pull someone over, by ALL MEANS, run them. You get called to an altercation between two individuals, by ALL MEANS, run them. You are sitting at a red light, pay attention to what's going on around you and don't just randomly input license plates. Stop fishing and get off your ass and look for people committing crimes!

Brother Head:Crotchrocket Slim: Brother Head: Gaseous Anomaly: imprimere: So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

That particular law makes life pretty difficult for citizens that "look Mexican". Plus its entire idea is misguided: the idea that if you just deport enough of them they stop coming.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, punish their employers. With no work, they stop coming (citation: the recession).

I don't know about that. They'll still come and just get on welfare (if there are no jobs for them).

You probably didn't know that most "welfare" is citizen only also, meaning you still have no clue what is actually driving the immigration worries.

So you're saying that NO person on welfare is here illegally?

And I know what drives the immigration worries.

Also, so we're clear, you think that if there were no jobs available, that no one would ever sneak in to the US?

I think it's retarded to have an entire policy dictated on the actions of a few outliers. If there were absolutely no jobs available in the US, even jobs too dangerous to hire a citizen to do legally, you'd see a severe drop off of people sneaking into the country specifically to look for work, but that's not the sole reason people sneak into the nation (admittedly it is the primary reason anyone does relocate into the US now, legally or not). The social programs that are available to persons without the legal documentation to back it up isn't especially greate; you need a government-issued ID to sign up for food stamps in most areas now.

Tell me what social programs someone with no documentation whatsoever can sign up for in your area, and tell me what their benefits are. You don't clearly understand things that haven't been told to you by some fat AM radio host with an exceptionally gravelly voice.

imprimere:At what point is it OK to check people? Everyone here is arguing that it's OK to check people at any time.

Correct.

Fine, but why limit it to a list of people who have warrants? Why not pull over random people to check their licenses?

This is an apples and oranges comparison that illustrates a dramatic misunderstanding of the law. There are standards that must be met to impede someone's freedom and perform a search. Things that you choose to put in plain view for the whole world to see or voluntarily present are not held to that standard.

That's why. That is the answer. If this guy was stupid enough to walk past a cop who knew his face from a wanted poster, you wouldn't complain that he wasn't doing anything wrong and the officer should not have looked at his face, would you? How is this different?

He was not breaking a law, but she checked to see if he was a lawbreaker.

No, she didn't. She checked to see if he has an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Whether or not he has actually broken the law has not been determined.

Yes, it's done all the time and we accept that, but should we?

I understand that you think is a major distinction, but it isn't, because you still haven't provided a single good reason why we should not accept it (and even encourage it, since it does work, you seemingly agree that it does not violate anyone's rights, and you seemingly agree that arresting people with warrants is desirable).

You are sitting at a red light, pay attention to what's going on around you and don't just randomly input license plates.

Yes, because God forbid anybody ever recover a stolen car.

Stop fishing and get off your ass and look for people committing crimes!

She found one.

I'll ask again: your argument appears to ultimately be that someone should be able to commit a violent felony (rape, robbery, murder), have a warrant issued against them on the basis of sufficient evidence, and the police should not be able to identify that person on the street as long as they stay out of trouble, because there is no reason to run their plate or name.

Do you see why people would think your line of argument is ridiculous? How am I wrong?

Crotchrocket Slim:Brother Head: Crotchrocket Slim: Brother Head: Gaseous Anomaly: imprimere: So, with what most of you are arguing here, why is there such a big fuss with AZ wanting to see people's licensense to prove citizenship? Yes, I know that this guy approached the officer, but the argument that I'm getting is that cops should check people at anytime and for any reason.

No, I'm not an ex-con, current con or have anything to hide.

That particular law makes life pretty difficult for citizens that "look Mexican". Plus its entire idea is misguided: the idea that if you just deport enough of them they stop coming.

If you really want to stop illegal immigration, punish their employers. With no work, they stop coming (citation: the recession).

I don't know about that. They'll still come and just get on welfare (if there are no jobs for them).

You probably didn't know that most "welfare" is citizen only also, meaning you still have no clue what is actually driving the immigration worries.

So you're saying that NO person on welfare is here illegally?

And I know what drives the immigration worries.

Also, so we're clear, you think that if there were no jobs available, that no one would ever sneak in to the US?

I think it's retarded to have an entire policy dictated on the actions of a few outliers. If there were absolutely no jobs available in the US, even jobs too dangerous to hire a citizen to do legally, you'd see a severe drop off of people sneaking into the country specifically to look for work, but that's not the sole reason people sneak into the nation (admittedly it is the primary reason anyone does relocate into the US now, legally or not). The social programs that are available to persons without the legal documentation to back it up isn't especially greate; you need a government-issued ID to sign up for food stamps in most areas now.

Tell me what social programs someone with no documentation whatsoever can sign up for in your area, and tell me what their benefits are. ...

Oh, let's stop right there. I don't listen to AM talk show hosts as most of them are retarded.

And I could be wrong, but the last time I had to go in to check on getting med-ical for my family, they said that they are non-reporting. Again, I could be wrong.

Also, you're going to tell me that no one on public assistance uses fake or bought IDs?

And for the record, I'm not saying that welfare is the only reason people sneak in to America. That comment was in response to someone saying that if they cut off the jobs, then that would cure illegal immigration.

I was just using one example of why it might but it down, but wouldn't stop it.As you're inferring, there are other reasons also.

So it sounds like we're basically on the same page.. well, maybe not the same page, but at least the same chapter.

You've repeatedly failed to explain why you think it's wrong, only using what you think are outrageous examples in the hopes that everyone will come around and agree with you without any actual argument to back it up.

Instead, you've been repeatedly shown that those examples are illustrations of how it does work and that nobody but you thinks they are outrageous. When specifically offered a coherent interpretation of your view, an explanation of the problems with it, and an opportunity to explain why it isn't completely absurd, you ignored it.

Why do you think this is bad and how do you think suspects with outstanding warrants should be apprehended instead? Articulate your argument.

I think it's bad because it shows a presumption of guilt by all officers of all citizens. I think it's bad because it creates and 'us against them' mentality. I think it's bad because it does nothing to foster trust between citizens and governing bodies. I think it's bad because it can lead to people not reporting crimes or seeking legitimate help for fear of reprisal. I think it's bad because once it becomes acceptable to submit to arbitrary checks, the next step is to put the burden of innocence upon the accused.

I do apologize if I have not made this clear. I am often given to hoping that people will come to my conclusions on their own. I do appreciate those of you who just don't agree with me, but can do so without labeling me an idiot.

It may not be ideal, but I want my justice system and its enforcers to get a whole lot more black-and-white. Cops can profile, racially or otherwise. Judges can make sentences more harsh or lenient as they like. Citizens however, are expected to know every law and not to break them. You can't sort of break a law and ignorance is no excuse.

So, when a warrant is issued, I want the cops to contact that person by every reasonable means at their disposal. Call them up. Visit their listed address(es). Conact their PO if they have one. I don't expect them to go fishing with the general population in hopes of sucessfully executing a warrant.

I'm not convict and have nothing to hide, but I do have a story, which may explain why I have the mindset that I do.

When I was 19, I worked 2 jobs. One at a fastfood joint and the other at a bowling alley, and they were very far apart. I took public transportation. Understandably, I carried a bag for my change of clothes, books to read, etc. On my walk to my apartment from the bus stop I was stopped by the police. The officer approached me and, in his mannerisms and his tone of questioning, made me feel uncomfortable. He asked me what I had in the bag. I told him, something along the lines of "clothes and stuff". He then said something like, "So, you won't mind if we look in your bag then if you have nothing to hide?"

At this point I felt very agitated. I've worked a long day at two different jobs and I just want to go home unmolested. I told the cop that I didn't believed it mattered if I gave him permission or not, because I was sure he was going to search it anyway. He confirmed that, explaining (in a very smug way) that there were complaints of someone spraypainting in the neighborhood and that they were seen to have a bag on them. He said he had probable cause (which he intimated would be escalated by my refusal to consent to a search) and that he was going to check the bag one way or the other. I relented and the search turned up nothing illegal. When he was done with the search, I was left to put my items back in my bag (he couldn't be bothered to clean up the mess) and he continued his air of 'that's right, you're gonna do what I say'. I believe that he was more annoyed that I didn't have pot or something on me. He never thanked me for my time or explained that he was just doing his job.

So, yes. I don't like the idea that cops go around 'seeing criminals'. I still want (in vain) them to be a source of protection. That cop could have approached me and explained the situation. He could have been polite or at least emotionless in the execution of his duty. He could have thanked me for my cooperation and asked me to contact him if I saw anything. Instead, he treated me like a criminal, even after he had no reason to.